A valid Government pension option cannot be retrospectively altered to impose IDA pension.

The applicant joined the Civil Aviation Department as a Driver on 17 August 1965 and was subsequently absorbed into the National Airports Authority of India (NAAI) in 1989. He claimed to have exercised an option to retain Central Government pensionary benefits. He retired as Senior Superintendent on 31 October 2000, and his pension was initially fixed at ₹5,352 per month and later revised under the Central Government pension structure

In 2012, the respondents treated him as an Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pensioner and retrospectively revised his pension downward with effect from 1 January 2007, resulting in reduced payments from January 2013 and recovery of alleged excess payment from September 2013. The respondents contended that, following his absorption in NAAI and conversion from Central Dearness Allowance to IDA scales, his pension had correctly been sanctioned and revised as an IDA pension under Rule 37-A(9) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant challenged the reclassification, reduction and recovery before the Tribunal

Whether the applicant, having exercised an option to retain Central Government pensionary benefits upon absorption in NAAI, was entitled to have his pension calculated and revised under the Central Government pension rules rather than the IDA pensionary pattern

Whether the respondents could retrospectively alter the basis of the applicant’s pension after its sanction and payment for several years by treating him as an IDA pensioner

Whether recovery of alleged excess pension paid pursuant to the disputed reclassification was legally sustainable in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant

The Tribunal applied Rule 37-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, particularly sub-rule (8), which permits an absorbed Government servant to receive pensionary benefits either on the basis of combined Government and undertaking service or, at his option, benefits for Government service in accordance with Central Government orders

Rule 37-A(9) governs the calculation of pension once the employee is covered by the Rule 37-A(8) regime, while sub-rule (10) provides for dearness relief under the industrial DA pattern

The Tribunal relied on Office Memorandum No. 4/18/87-P&PW(D) dated 5 July 1989, under which employees transferred en masse to a PSU or autonomous body could opt either to retain Government pensionary benefits or to be governed by the undertaking’s rules; those retaining Government benefits were entitled, at retirement, to pension under the Central Government rules in force at that time

It also considered the Office Memorandum dated 20 December 2002, which clarifies that IDA pay may be considered in calculating average emoluments under Rule 37-A(9), but does not authorise retrospective conversion of a Government pensioner into an IDA pensioner

The Tribunal found that the applicant was originally a Central Government employee absorbed into NAAI and that the 1989 Office Memorandum expressly protected an employee’s option to retain Government pensionary benefits

The fact that the applicant drew pay in an IDA scale after absorption did not, by itself, establish that he had abandoned or altered his pension option

The respondents failed to produce the relevant option, its acceptance, the pension-sanctioning order or contemporaneous records demonstrating that the applicant had opted for the IDA pensionary regime

Rule 37-A(9) was held to prescribe the method of calculation of pension and not to confer power to retrospectively change the nature of an already sanctioned pension

Since the applicant’s pension had been sanctioned and paid under the Government pension framework for a considerable period, the subsequent downward reclassification was held unsustainable.

The recovery was likewise invalid because it arose solely from the respondents’ erroneous reclassification and there was no allegation or evidence of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicant

The respondents were directed to restore and re-fix the applicant’s pension by treating him as entitled to Central Government pensionary benefits under the 5 July 1989 Office Memorandum and Rule 37-A(8), subject to verification of the pension legally admissible under the applicable rules

They were further directed to calculate and release consequential arrears, refund any amount recovered pursuant to the erroneous downward revision, discontinue any further recovery on that account, and revise consequential pensionary benefits.

The directions were to be completed within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs, and all associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of